Dry yeasts identified - your opinions please!

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

tizoc

Active Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
36
Reaction score
30
I...disagree?
Check the specs, don't you think M66 looks closer to M44 than M42? not sure what you are disagreeing with. I am not claiming it is one or the other.

M42:

M42.png

M44:

M44.png


M66:

M66.png


Certainly they didn't deny my suspicions when I emailed (or confirm).
Since they didn't either deny or confirm, I wouldn't use it as evidence of the yeast being the same (or not being the same) as M42.

In any case, I think what is most important here (for me at least) is knowing that M66 is not Verdant.
 

tbaldwin000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
34
Check the specs, don't you think M66 looks closer to M44 than M42? not sure what you are disagreeing with. I am not claiming it is one or the other.

M42:

View attachment 724589
M44:

View attachment 724591

M66:

View attachment 724590



Since they didn't either deny or confirm, I wouldn't use it as evidence of the yeast being the same (or not being the same) as M42.

In any case, I think what is most important here (for me at least) is knowing that M66 is not Verdant.
In terms of compaction and flocculation rate it looks like M44, otherwise it looks like M42. If I was personally choosing a yeast for a hazy I would pick M42. I agree the email response is tenuous at best.

In any case it's definitely not Verdant.
 

tizoc

Active Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
36
Reaction score
30
Back to M54, they advertise the 18C-20C range, but I see that Mauribrew 497 has a 12-20C range (see: https://www.homebrewing.org/assets/images/PDF/Mauribrew_LAGER497.pdf), with the low-end of the range getting you the more neutral profile you would expect in a lager beer, and the higher range being more fruity/floral.

Has anyone used M54 in the lower end of the Mauribrew 497 range? how did it go? I have used it only once, at 18C (2 sachets in ~22L), and fruity/floral is a good descriptor for the result I got, which tbh is not what I wanted (my goal was a helles-like pale lager, and what I got isn't it).
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,582
Reaction score
2,807
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Has anyone used M54 in the lower end of the Mauribrew 497 range? how did it go? I have used it only once, at 18C (2 sachets in ~22L), and fruity/floral is a good descriptor for the result I got, which tbh is not what I wanted (my goal was a helles-like pale lager, and what I got isn't it).
Attenuation percentage says the most in a lot of cases. Can you tell me your OG and FG or apparent attenuation for that batch, please? :)
 

tizoc

Active Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
36
Reaction score
30
The yeasts we are comparing all have similar expected attenuation right? I don't think we can use attenuation to discriminate between them here (also, it will depend a lot on process and grist).

1.043-1.007 (83% AA), grist was 92% Castle Pils, 5.5% Weyermann Carahell, 2.5% Castle Acid, step mash.
 

Birrofilo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
612
Reaction score
330
Location
Rome
I am sorry I did not read the entire thread but I would like to insert some reasoning.

I don't understand what "repackaging" means in the first post. It might be that Mangrove Jack's grows and selects their own strain of yeast, but they don't have facilities to dry them. So is it possible that they ship their fresh yeast to Lallemand or Fermentis simply for the drying job?

Regarding the origin of the various yeasts, although White, Wyeast, Lallemand, Fermentis, etc. are opaque regarding the origin, Omega gives very clear "hints" to the customer, intelligenti pauca.

The "probably stays" below are not derived only from the obvious initial but from other sources, such as Strong opinion, and they ended up in my notes because of some explicit reference by somebody. My notes say:

Omega OYL-024 Belgian Ale A (A probably stays for Achouffe)
Omega OYL-018 Abbey Ale C (C probably stays for Chimay)
Omega OYL-020 Belgian Ale R (R probably stays for Rochefort)
Omega OYL-046 Belgian Ale O (O probably stays for Orval)
Omega OYL-028 Belgian Ale W (W probably stays for Westmalle)
Omega OYL-019 Belgian Ale D (D probably stays for Duvel Moortgat)
Omega OYL-049 Belgian Ale DK (DK probably stays for De Koninck)

From there, you can follow the thread that Omega gives in their publications, when they give equivalences. They are a yeast producer and they know what they talk about.
Equivalences between Wyeast and White are generally well known.
Making 2 + 2 one could derive the following 4s:

Wyeast 3522 (Belgian Ardennes) - White Labs WLP550 (Belgian Ale) = Achouffe
Wyeast 1214 (Belgian Ale) - White Labs WLP500 (Trappist Ale) = Chimay
Wyeast 1762 (Belgian Abbey II) - White Labs WLP540 (Belgian Abbey IV) = Rochefort
White Labs WLP510 (Bastogne Belgian Ale) = Orval
Wyeast 3787 (Trappist High Gravity) - White Labs WLP530 (Abbey Ale) = Westmalle
Wyeast 1388 (Belgian Strong Ale) - White Labs WLP570 (Belgian Golden Ale) = Duvel Moortgat
White Labs WLP515 Antwerp Ale yeast = De Koninck

I am sorry if all this is already obvious. It should as always be considered that there might have been some drifting from the original, although I tend to think to a yeast producer as to somebody who is actually able to keep a strain "pure" or I wouldn't see much difference between a yeast producer and a beer producer or a homebrewer, I trust equivalences to actually be equalities.

I did not "work" the equivalence through all the Omega catalogue, but in general they seem to be more transparent than the other producers, and through the clues that they give and the equivalences one can compose a realiable table with some patience. You might have guessed that I am mainly interested in Belgian styles...

I wouldn't trust personal impressions (even derived from split batches) because there are too many variables at play. I think hints and clues from people working in the yeast business are more reliable.

Regarding the possible equivalence of Fermentis S-04 and Mangrove Jack's Empire Ale, I read reviews rating S-04 as more "biscuity" and Empire Ale as more English as in more fruity. I have too minuscule experience with both to emit a judgement although - maybe out of suggestion - I might tend to confirm this idea.

Omega says that their OYL-004 West Coast Ale I is "Chico" and "compares to" WY1056 or WLP001.

Sometimes they call the brewery almost by name, as in the strings: "This strain is thought to be from one of the US’s oldest family-owned breweries in Minnesota" or "Thought to be from the famous Alpine brewery in Aying, Bavaria", "thought to be from Budejovice", "thought to originate from a well known Mexican brewery", "Thought to be the D strain of the famous Pilsen brewer."

Many of those have Wyeast and White equivalence ("compares to") indicated by Omega.

YMM as always V.

Omega catalogue 2019 attached
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
2,564
Location
UK
Iteresting about US-05 not being either WY1056 nor WLP001. Always heard it was one of those.
Some of that is just down to how precise you want to be with language. As soon as you propagate yeast from different vials, you're technically dealing with something different, as there will always be mutations along the way. So it's correct to say that US-05, 1056 and WLP001 are all in the same family, but they all have slightly different changes to their DNA. Notably, like most derivatives of BRY-96 they have lost a copy of chromosome V. But we also now know that US-05 is more closely related to 1056 than WLP001, as both 1056 and WLP001 have a mutation in the BAT1 gene that WLP001 lacks.

As far as New England goes, it was isolated from a mix of two beers made with commercial Conans from well-known modern breweries in northern England, one of which seems to have tried a number of different ones and is known not to be a fan of WLP095.
 
Last edited:

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
2,564
Location
UK
I am sorry I did not read the entire thread but I would like to insert some reasoning.

I don't understand what "repackaging" means in the first post. It might be that Mangrove Jack's grows and selects their own strain of yeast, but they don't have facilities to dry them. So is it possible that they ship their fresh yeast to Lallemand or Fermentis simply for the drying job?
Testing and producing a dry yeast is the difficult thing, putting it in a packet is the easy bit. MJ do not do the difficult thing other than in a very limited way by eg mixing an existing dry yeast with enzyme. But in general they are buying dry yeast in bulk and putting it in packets themselves.


I think hints and clues from people working in the yeast business are more reliable.
In some cases they may have more insight, but often they have no more insight (often less) than the more informed members of HBT. Often the same old "facts" get repeated verbatim like holy text, without much care as to the accuracy or origins of the information.

And you have to remember people's motivation - ultimately the likes of Omega want to sell yeast. If they can hint at a commercial origin, they will sell more yeast even though such simplistic stories will not account for the fact that eg most traditional British breweries are using multistrains whereas White Labs and Wyeast (try to) sell single strains. And it gets even more complicated when a brewery changes yeast - the conventional wisdom is that London Ale III came from Boddingtons (300km from London, which should give you a clue!!!), but it's certainly not the famous yeast that was used at the Boddington brewery for most of the 20th century, and may well have come from a Boddies beer brewed at a different brewery altogether.

I am sorry if all this is already obvious. It should as always be considered that there might have been some drifting from the original, although I tend to think to a yeast producer as to somebody who is actually able to keep a strain "pure" or I wouldn't see much difference between a yeast producer and a beer producer or a homebrewer, I trust equivalences to actually be equalities.
To a yeast geneticist, they are never equal, there are always mutations. The US-05/WLP001/1056 group is a nice example where we now have full sequences so we not only know *that* they are different (which a number of brewers had already worked out), we now know exactly *how* they are different - and even the US-05 you bought in 2019 is not the same as the US-05 you bought in 2018, as per the Dunham tree.
 

Birrofilo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
612
Reaction score
330
Location
Rome
To a yeast geneticist, they are never equal, there are always mutations. The US-05/WLP001/1056 group is a nice example where we now have full sequences so we not only know *that* they are different (which a number of brewers had already worked out), we now know exactly *how* they are different - and even the US-05 you bought in 2019 is not the same as the US-05 you bought in 2018, as per the Dunham tree.
What I don't understand in this reasoning is how a firm which is devoted to yeast reproduction cannot control the deviations from the original specimen and revert to the right path.

If I raise dogs, and I have a certain breed of dogs, the famous Birrofilo long-eared beer-thirsty cocker, and I am in the business of keeping the characters of this breed constant and recognizable, I will select which puppies to reproduce in order to keep the qualities that I want. There will be deviations but I will recognize them and will always be able to revert to the original specimen through my mating strategy.

Yeasts have a much faster reproduction cycle and maybe a much more "fluid" genetic code, but why shouldn't the yeast producer "watch" the variations and restart cultures from the individuals with the characters that they want? A deviation doesn't happen in all individuals simultaneously. Yeast producers should be able to recognize, study, and in case breed those variations as separate products.

If Fermentis or a yeast producer is not able to keep a strain (of such an importance such as US-05) constant in one year time, what would be the advantage, for a brewery, to source the yeast from a specialist (as I understand many do) rather than simply growing their own? I always gave for granted that the added value of a specialist grower of yeast is not the "trivial" job of raising and packing yeast, but the complicated job of analysing the yeast genetically so that they could deliver their clients a product of reliable uniformity of results (and maybe isolate interesting variations, yes, but always maintaining them as separate breeds).
 

twd000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
770
Reaction score
151
Location
New Hampshire
can anyone cite a source regarding the oft-repeated fact that Mangrove Jack simply repackages yeast from Lallemand/Danstar? I've heard it repeated enough but never quite sure where it came from

As a counterpoint, here is a podcast featuring the head brewer at Mangrove Jack's: Mangrove Jack’s – NZB Podcast Episode #27
The relevant content is from 33 minutes to 1:55 if you want to jump ahead.

He talks about yeast strain selection and how they perform trials in-house to select for certain performance and flavor characteristics.
Talks about blending multi-strains to create a "new" yeast brand with certain proportions, and how it can diverge beyond 4-7 repitch generations.
Talks about going to the yeast bank and requesting strains that meet certain criteria, that might not be in circulation, so MJ can grow them out, test them, make a brand and release to brewers with recommended beer styles.
He does acknowledge that the large commercial supplier (Danstar/Lalllemand) does the drying and packaging on behalf of MJ, since it is so capital intensive.

Overall I got the impression that reality is quite the opposite of conventional wisdom; MJ is not opening a 500g brick of Lallemand yeast and re-packaging it into 11g sachets for retail sale. In fact they are sourcing yeast strains from a yeast bank, selecting and blending them into "new" brands, then contracting Lallemand to dry and package it for retail sales.

I suppose the interviewee <could> have just gotten on a podcast to lie and mislead for an hour, but he seemed quite credible to me. And I no longer believe that MJ repackages Lallemand yeasts, though like all brewing strains they do share some lineage.
 

Kjokkakim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
48
Reaction score
21
Anybody who wants to try to guess where the Crossmyloof Brew is from? They seem to have a wider selection than MJ.

I've also added Brewly from thehomebrewery.eu who claim theirs are made in Sweden, which could be true, as there is a company i Sweden making contracted beer yeast.

I've tried to make a guess, based on the descriptions. Some are surely hit and miss.

I've made a editable spreadsheet using @frankvw setup from the first post.
 
Last edited:

tbaldwin000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
34
What I don't understand in this reasoning is how a firm which is devoted to yeast reproduction cannot control the deviations from the original specimen and revert to the right path.
Dry yeast production is not a spin up, harvest, spin down and then start again from a fresh culture process. The yeast is continuously grown and dried, so the operation would run for some time before they go back to a frozen aliquot of the 'original' strain. Be in no doubt, they keep an eye on any drift in the strains and ensure they meet the brewing parameters expected.
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
2,564
Location
UK
Anybody who wants to try to guess where the Crossmyloof Brew is from? They seem to have a wider selection than MJ.
You're probably better off on the British forums for that, as there are far more users of CML yeast there. But broadly their yeasts seem to have gone in three phases.

Initially they were pretty much a 1:1 match with the MJ range, presumably they were getting them packed at MJ's sister company SPL International near Liverpool.

Then they mostly switched to "a German yeast manufacturer", possibly www.malzwerkstatt.de

More recently they've introduced the likes of Four and Five which are blatantly S-04 and US-05, presumably they're now doing enough volume to be able to use multiple suppliers and which would also help them hedge against any logistics disruption from Brexit.
 

Kjokkakim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
48
Reaction score
21
You're probably better off on the British forums for that, as there are far more users of CML yeast there. But broadly their yeasts seem to have gone in three phases.

Initially they were pretty much a 1:1 match with the MJ range, presumably they were getting them packed at MJ's sister company SPL International near Liverpool.

Then they mostly switched to "a German yeast manufacturer", possibly www.malzwerkstatt.de

More recently they've introduced the likes of Four and Five which are blatantly S-04 and US-05, presumably they're now doing enough volume to be able to use multiple suppliers and which would also help them hedge against any logistics disruption from Brexit.
Thanks that informing. Even if CML is UK based they seem to ship worldwide. I suppose this could be interesting to others in this thread.

Btw I found this thread which is quite long.

And a bit shorter thread

I'd be happy if @dmtaylor or @frankvw decides to include CML and others into their spreadsheets. But fully respect if they find it too time-consuming to catch up.
 
Last edited:

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
2,564
Location
UK
can anyone cite a source regarding the oft-repeated fact that Mangrove Jack simply repackages yeast from Lallemand/Danstar? I've heard it repeated enough but never quite sure where it came from
In my case - personal communication from someone who would know, with specific examples of products they're white-labelling. That doesn't mean every single MJ product is a straight white-label, but the vast majority of their stuff is. The fact that in most cases you can identify which one it is, also suggests that they are taking the easy route of repacking rather than the complicated route of 1+ year of science and trials before coming up with something that brews just the same as an existing dry yeast.

I suppose the interviewee <could> have just gotten on a podcast to lie and mislead for an hour, but he seemed quite credible to me. And I no longer believe that MJ repackages Lallemand yeasts, though like all brewing strains they do share some lineage.
I've not listened to all of it, but I certainly wouldn't say he's lying. But if you listen to the detail, I think what he's saying is compatible with the idea that they started off just white-labelling, and are now big enough to start being a bit more creative in terms of novel blends of existing products, whilst leaving the difficult stuff of whole new strains to the experts. That's fair enough. For instance, at 41:05m he talks about how they get dry yeast companies to "do a lot of the biological work for us..and propagation" and at 45:25 "there are other yeast strains that are out on the market...that are really popular and we do take those...and then try to figure out how we can maybe improve on it...and we might mix that with another culture of yeast". So that appears to be an admission of taking white-label yeasts and mixing them, which is something that's been suspected not proven.

Yes at 45:50m he talks about how "our scientists are doing research in the background, taking samples from environment...and how we can utilise those in the brewing process". That's not something you do for regular brewing yeast, which are the products of centuries of domestication in breweries. However, it is how "funnies" like Lachancea (Lallemand's "Philly Sour") and Yeast Bay's entire Wild Capture range such as Metschnikowia reukaufii came about. But MJ have no such product available for sale. So I imagine that though they like to big it up as it sounds cool, it's a pretty early-stage project at the moment, no doubt looking at home in NZ as fewer people have looked there and there's a good chance of something novel. If I had to bet, I'd guess they're looking in particular for something suitable for low-alcohol fermentations like White Labs WLP618 Saccharomycodes ludwigii - I imagine there could be a good market for a dry version of something like that, given the growing interest in low-alcohol drinks.

You'll notice that when the host at 46:30 asks the question - "is there anything you guys have created that noone has anything like?" - he gets very evasive, "I'll get back to you", and then starts flanneling a bit about drift and changes over propagation and WLP001 vs 1056. Which suggests that they're maybe maintaining at least one lineage that's separate to what one thinks of as the "true" lineage - but that could be eg the Munton version of Nottingham versus the Lallemand one, their wine yeasts seem related to the Munton-Gervin range so there's some kind of relationship there. But basicly if they did have something genuinely unique, he would be shouting from the rooftops about it at around 47m and it's telling that he doesn't.

In terms of "innovation", I'd suggest something like M66 Hophead is about as adventurous as they go - it's a dry yeast designed for hoppy beers, that came out soon after Lallemand Verdant, a dry yeast intended for hoppy beers. If you look at the ingredient list on the label it includes "enzymes (pectinase and glucosidase)". That sounds rather like they're mixing Verdant with one of Lallemand's wine enzyme mixes like Lallzyme Beta. It's not the most revolutionary thing to do - Lallemand themselves have recently released Aromazyme, a glucosidase specifically aimed at brewers - but that's the kind of level of innovation that MJ are operating at.

And that's OK, it can often be a smart way to make money.
 
OP
frankvw

frankvw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
97
Location
Johannesburg
I don't know which one of the liquid yeasts it is, but there's one 100% match, just don't remember which one.
That would make sense; Lallemand seems especially good at taking liquid yeasts and turning them into dry ones.
 
OP
frankvw

frankvw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
97
Location
Johannesburg
Anybody who wants to try to guess where the Crossmyloof Brew is from? They seem to have a wider selection than MJ.
My money is on these being repacked/rebranded mainstrain yeasts from Fermentis and Lallemand. Yeasts like "Four" and "Five" are not hard to identify as SafAle S-04 and US-05. Lallemand strains match many others. Then there's AEB, Mauri and what not. Fudge the characteristics a little, rename it and off you go.

I've also added Brewly from thehomebrewery.eu who claim theirs are made in Sweden, which could be true, as there is a company i Sweden making contracted beer yeast.
If I'm not mistaken these guys also produce AEB yeasts, but the latter are more aimed at the professional market than the home brewing market. Their strains are extremely close to classic (and unpatentable) strains such as EDME descendants and Whitbread.

Nice spreadsheet, BTW. Kudos!
 

Kjokkakim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
48
Reaction score
21
You're probably better off on the British forums for that, as there are far more users of CML yeast there. But broadly their yeasts seem to have gone in three phases.

Initially they were pretty much a 1:1 match with the MJ range, presumably they were getting them packed at MJ's sister company SPL International near Liverpool.

Then they mostly switched to "a German yeast manufacturer", possibly www.malzwerkstatt.de

More recently they've introduced the likes of Four and Five which are blatantly S-04 and US-05, presumably they're now doing enough volume to be able to use multiple suppliers and which would also help them hedge against any logistics disruption from Brexit.
I sent CML an e-mail. This is the reply I got. Not saying very much.

Hi, good to hear from you. Cheers for the question, much appreciated. All our yeasts are supplied by two main suppliers, who send to a third party where they’re repacked for us. We then label them in house. We hope to do the re-packing ourselves at some point, but don’t have the facility to do it at the moment. As far as we're aware these strains aren't found in any other brand of yeast, however there’re definitely some similarities with the other brands out there, especially in our Beirm range. So further down the line some may be from the bigger brands? Hope that helps and cheers again.
 

twd000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
770
Reaction score
151
Location
New Hampshire
thanks for the clarification

In my case - personal communication from someone who would know, with specific examples of products they're white-labelling. That doesn't mean every single MJ product is a straight white-label, but the vast majority of their stuff is. The fact that in most cases you can identify which one it is, also suggests that they are taking the easy route of repacking rather than the complicated route of 1+ year of science and trials before coming up with something that brews just the same as an existing dry yeast.



I've not listened to all of it, but I certainly wouldn't say he's lying. But if you listen to the detail, I think what he's saying is compatible with the idea that they started off just white-labelling, and are now big enough to start being a bit more creative in terms of novel blends of existing products, whilst leaving the difficult stuff of whole new strains to the experts. That's fair enough. For instance, at 41:05m he talks about how they get dry yeast companies to "do a lot of the biological work for us..and propagation" and at 45:25 "there are other yeast strains that are out on the market...that are really popular and we do take those...and then try to figure out how we can maybe improve on it...and we might mix that with another culture of yeast". So that appears to be an admission of taking white-label yeasts and mixing them, which is something that's been suspected not proven.

Yes at 45:50m he talks about how "our scientists are doing research in the background, taking samples from environment...and how we can utilise those in the brewing process". That's not something you do for regular brewing yeast, which are the products of centuries of domestication in breweries. However, it is how "funnies" like Lachancea (Lallemand's "Philly Sour") and Yeast Bay's entire Wild Capture range such as Metschnikowia reukaufii came about. But MJ have no such product available for sale. So I imagine that though they like to big it up as it sounds cool, it's a pretty early-stage project at the moment, no doubt looking at home in NZ as fewer people have looked there and there's a good chance of something novel. If I had to bet, I'd guess they're looking in particular for something suitable for low-alcohol fermentations like White Labs WLP618 Saccharomycodes ludwigii - I imagine there could be a good market for a dry version of something like that, given the growing interest in low-alcohol drinks.

You'll notice that when the host at 46:30 asks the question - "is there anything you guys have created that noone has anything like?" - he gets very evasive, "I'll get back to you", and then starts flanneling a bit about drift and changes over propagation and WLP001 vs 1056. Which suggests that they're maybe maintaining at least one lineage that's separate to what one thinks of as the "true" lineage - but that could be eg the Munton version of Nottingham versus the Lallemand one, their wine yeasts seem related to the Munton-Gervin range so there's some kind of relationship there. But basicly if they did have something genuinely unique, he would be shouting from the rooftops about it at around 47m and it's telling that he doesn't.

In terms of "innovation", I'd suggest something like M66 Hophead is about as adventurous as they go - it's a dry yeast designed for hoppy beers, that came out soon after Lallemand Verdant, a dry yeast intended for hoppy beers. If you look at the ingredient list on the label it includes "enzymes (pectinase and glucosidase)". That sounds rather like they're mixing Verdant with one of Lallemand's wine enzyme mixes like Lallzyme Beta. It's not the most revolutionary thing to do - Lallemand themselves have recently released Aromazyme, a glucosidase specifically aimed at brewers - but that's the kind of level of innovation that MJ are operating at.

And that's OK, it can often be a smart way to make money.
thanks for the clarification

it does sound like they are getting more adventurous lately and I wonder how far back your inside conversation occurred?

to pursue another tangent, how "different" does a yeast strain need to be, to allow it to be sold as a new product, without running afoul of lawyers and intellectual property concerns? If I were to buy a packet of US-05 and repitch it in my home brewery for 10-12 generations, I would expect some random mutations to occur, which may not even be phenotypically relevant for brewing performance, but would make it genetically distinct if it were sequenced in a lab. Could I legally streak an agar plate, propagate up a slurry from that, and resell it as "Super West Coast IPA yeast"?
 

Birrofilo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
612
Reaction score
330
Location
Rome
to pursue another tangent, how "different" does a yeast strain need to be, to allow it to be sold as a new product, without running afoul of lawyers and intellectual property concerns?
I think the question is different: Which is the minimum variation I need to have in order to sell a certain yeast, or to sell it with my own name, claiming some rights to it, while at the same time warding off claims by the original yeast producer, and yet appeal to the same customers, and having the same characteristics?

Yeast producers aim at same homebrewing result, patentability, rights protection, protection from litigation.

The various variations of, let's say, the "Chico" strain, cannot be identical (US-05 cannot be identical to WLP001 which cannot be identical to W-1056) because that would expose the producing firm to litigation.

It must be "different enough" for patent litigation (both passive and active), and "similar enough" for market placement.

The variations from the original strain are IMHO simply due to this set of needs.

Each firm will try to get some interesting variation from the strain, while reproducing it, at the same reproducing it not identical to other firms' strain, but different enough to defend themselves in court.

From a homebrewer's point of view, US-05 is equal to WLP001 which is equal to Wyeast 1056.
 
OP
frankvw

frankvw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
97
Location
Johannesburg
to pursue another tangent, how "different" does a yeast strain need to be, to allow it to be sold as a new product, without running afoul of lawyers and intellectual property concerns? If I were to buy a packet of US-05 and repitch it in my home brewery for 10-12 generations, I would expect some random mutations to occur, which may not even be phenotypically relevant for brewing performance, but would make it genetically distinct if it were sequenced in a lab. Could I legally streak an agar plate, propagate up a slurry from that, and resell it as "Super West Coast IPA yeast"?
First off, the idea of "random mutation" is inaccurate. Yeast does not mutate randomly more often or more easily than any other organism. DNA replication failure, ionizing radiation or chemical factors may influence yeast like it may influence you or me, which is to say, rarely and only under specific conditions. Yeast is, however, adaptive. It adapts to its environment, which means that generation 10 yeast will be better suited to your brewing environment than the generation 0 yeast you started with. Take Mauri 514, for example. This was (to the best of my knowledge) originally the basic British EDME strain which was brought to colonial Australia (Queensland, if memory serves) where it adapted to the local conditions and is now a yeast so robust that it can be called Armageddon-proof and ferments your beer properly over an much wider temperature range. (To venture further into microbiology than a layman should, it is my understanding that yeast stress during fermentation can actually result in DNA changes during propagation, resulting in next-gen yeast better adapted to the local conditions. But random this isn't.)

Second, legal implications are always murky. Whitbread, S-04 and AEB AY-3 are, to all intents and purposes, the same strain. Whatever variations there are between those two are too minor to matter when it comes to brewing. That sort of thing is difficult to copyright.

Then there are "grey areas" Take WLP-500, for example. This yeast was originally taken from the monastic Chimay brewery. They did not copyright their yeast. However, the current WLP-500 is no longer identical to that original sample taken in (AFAIK) the 1970s). Nor are WY1214 and WLP-500 still 100% identical. Yet they are considered the same strain. Then along came Lallemand and created a dried version of that yeast ("Abbaye") and stuck it in a packet with their brand name on it. All these yeasts have adapted to different conditions. How similar or different they are is a matter of debate. However, If I repack these yeasts and stick my own brand name on it without the permission of these suppliers, I just might find a cease-and-desist letter in the mail one morning.

Lastly there are the strains that are specifically developed via hybridization and other manipulative techniques, resulting in very unique strains which are far more easily copyrighted (and defended in court).

Which is why lawyers make big buck$.
 

Birrofilo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
612
Reaction score
330
Location
Rome
(To venture further into microbiology than a layman should, it is my understanding that yeast stress during fermentation can actually result in DNA changes during propagation, resulting in next-gen yeast better adapted to the local conditions. But random this isn't.)
It is random but it is selected by environment, as Darwin brilliantly explained. You have random variations, and those fit for their environment will manage to replicate themselves more easily.
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,582
Reaction score
2,807
Location
Two Rivers, WI
From a homebrewer's point of view, US-05 is equal to WLP001 which is equal to Wyeast 1056.
True in the minds of many or most homebrewers, perhaps.... except for the fact that US-05 is about 10% more attenuative than the other two, so much that I wouldn't dare consider it equivalent.
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
2,564
Location
UK
it does sound like they are getting more adventurous lately and I wonder how far back your inside conversation occurred?
Not that long ago - before they added M12 Kveik and M66 Hophead, but otherwise their range was pretty much as it is today. My contact was amused at the way some people on the forums swear two dry yeasts are different when they were the same yeast with different labels...

to pursue another tangent, how "different" does a yeast strain need to be, to allow it to be sold as a new product, without running afoul of lawyers and intellectual property concerns? If I were to buy a packet of US-05 and repitch it in my home brewery for 10-12 generations, I would expect some random mutations to occur, which may not even be phenotypically relevant for brewing performance, but would make it genetically distinct if it were sequenced in a lab. Could I legally streak an agar plate, propagate up a slurry from that, and resell it as "Super West Coast IPA yeast"?
It starts getting illegal when you start infringing people's intellectual property, either patents or trademarks. The yeast labs know they're on slightly thin ice as far as the "regular" homebrew strains go, so none of those are patented. But for instance, Lallemand's Philly Sour has been patented because they claim it's significantly different to previously known strains of Lachancea thermotolerans. Now that's debatable, but it means that if you produce any Lachancea whose behaviour is close enough to that specified in their patent, they can sue you - even if it has some irrelevant mutations that make it genetically a little bit different. But if you're doing it with a Chico variant then there's no patent and so you'll be fine.

Unless you start using other people's trademarks like Sierra Nevada or WLP001 (or eg WLPoo1) to describe it. WHC can tread a really fine line on that sometimes, they call their WLP007 equivalent Bond with silhouettes of guns and diamonds, whilst their Conan/Vermont is called Sanders... But "Super West Coast IPA yeast" is probably fine.
 
OP
frankvw

frankvw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
97
Location
Johannesburg
It is random but it is selected by environment, as Darwin brilliantly explained. You have random variations, and those fit for their environment will manage to replicate themselves more easily.
You are talking about mutation, not adaptation. They're different things. People living at high altitude develop a different physiology than those living at sea level. This is not genetic mutation; it's adaptation. Yeast does the latter. Natural selection does not play a role in this process. It does in random mutation.

But we digress. :)
 
OP
frankvw

frankvw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
97
Location
Johannesburg
True in the minds of many or most homebrewers, perhaps.... except for the fact that US-05 is about 10% more attenuative than the other two, so much that I wouldn't dare consider it equivalent.
For some home brewers this may be true, for others it may not be. If you are an advanced brewer with proper control over your mash temperature, wort composition and what not, 10% difference in attenuation will matter. For others who don't care about 2 degrees mash temperature difference, wort pH and water composition it won't even be noticeable among all the other uncontrolled variables. So it's a matter of perspective with "many or most" home brewers. :)
 

Birrofilo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
612
Reaction score
330
Location
Rome
You are talking about mutation, not adaptation. They're different things. People living at high altitude develop a different physiology than those living at sea level. This is not genetic mutation; it's adaptation. Yeast does the latter. Natural selection does not play a role in this process. It does in random mutation.
I see but adaptation is lost in the next generation. People living at high altitude do not pass to their children this different physiology. The children must acquire it by themselves. The same is for yeast, adaptation of a yeast strain only works for the individuals who are adapted to the environment. Their next generation (the generation of tomorrow, literally :) ) will not have that adaptation at birth.

A yeast producer cannot sell a yeast which is "adapted" to a certain environment. It's either a genetical character, or it must be acquired from the environment (either nature or nurture, as they say).
 

tbaldwin000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
34
You are talking about mutation, not adaptation. They're different things. People living at high altitude develop a different physiology than those living at sea level. This is not genetic mutation; it's adaptation. Yeast does the latter. Natural selection does not play a role in this process. It does in random mutation.

But we digress. :)
It is random mutation combined with environmental pressures which domesticates yeast to a new environment, not the adaptation of individual cells. Those most suited cells will survive to pass on their specific genetic traits, those less suited will not.
 

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
136
Reaction score
78
Location
Manchester England
3 years ago I chatted to a self employed marketing exec who had recently left Mangrove Jacks in Merseyside, England. I asked him where they got their yeasts from and he wouldn't give much away at all ,he said he couldn't - but that one of their yeasts is Nottingham. It's a ll I got but it confirms the re-packaging thing surely, and implicates Lallemand, probably. I have used quite a few MJ yeasts and I feel they are re-packaged, and in some cases blended. M36 is blended I reckon, Nottingham and Windsor, or S-33, perhaps. M44 is likely t be Bry-97. M29 - Belle Saison. M31 is a blend, I'm sure, there are two colours of yeast. Belle Saison and another Belgian, like Abbaye or T-58 maybe. M41 too, I think. M15 could be straight Windsor, or a blend perhaps. M47 could be Abbaye. It's quite likely i guess that MJ has one main supplier and uses blends, and it would be Lallemand if that's the case, I reckon. Wouldn't explain the MJ lager yeasts though. M54, M76 and M84 I don't know about. I know that Mauribrew is a possible source for MJ too, so M54 could be MB Lager? And it seems that Mauribrew makes Cooper's yeasts, some of which are blends, which backs up the blending suspicion a little. MJ's beer kits were the result of using James Kemp, ex- Marble brewer in Manchester and now at Yeastie Boys, as a consultant. The extract kits were quite innovative, including sours, a gose, a barrel aged beer etc. He perhaps also advised on dry yeast blends, which he would understand well as a pro brewer. Just guesswork, that.

I also chatted to the guy who runs CML a year or so ago and he was very cagey, he said they have a supplier but he doesn't know where they get the yeasts from and the only info he has about the yeasts is what he puts on the website, and a code number for each strain. I think he said Germany, but I may have read that and conflated it with that conversation. I think he did say Germany though. He didn't say they made the yeast. For me, CML yeasts don't seem to match other manufacturers' yeasts, in the main at least. Perform differently. YMMV.
 
OP
frankvw

frankvw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
97
Location
Johannesburg
It is random mutation combined with environmental pressures which domesticates yeast to a new environment, not the adaptation of individual cells. Those most suited cells will survive to pass on their specific genetic traits, those less suited will not.
That's not quite how yeast behaves. Take high stress fermentations, for example. At high alcohol levels yeast produces smaller daughter cells, and there is considerable indication that this has to do with DNA changes since those smaller daughter cells continue to produce smaller offspring cells in the next fermentation. This is adaptation, not random mutation, even though it results in DNA changes.

However, as I said, we're digressing from the thread subject. Perhaps this is fodder for a new thread!
 

mediant

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
93
Reaction score
73
Then they mostly switched to "a German yeast manufacturer", possibly www.malzwerkstatt.de

More recently they've introduced the likes of Four and Five which are blatantly S-04 and US-05, presumably they're now doing enough volume to be able to use multiple suppliers and which would also help them hedge against any logistics disruption from Brexit.
This is what Steven himself says about German pedigree of CML yeast :D
1617985434527.png

C'mon, everything this guy tells is BS:
1617985603867.png


His main business until recently was plumbing and handyman:
1617985724432.png

1617986893770.png

And here's the accounting data for CML:
1617985791661.png
 
Last edited:

ebbelwoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
598
Reaction score
321
Location
Japan
For what it's worth, I did a side-by-side-by-side batch of Mangrove Jack's M54, Fermentis K-97, and Mauribrew 497 lager.

During fermentation, the M54 and K-97 behaved very similarly in terms of when the krausen appeared, how high it got, when it receded, and the final gravity. It became clear early on that 497 was a different strain.

The beer was my third iteration of "Old '97", amber/alt. I had previously brewed it twice with K-97 and once with M54, and thought they tasted similar across batches. I usually use Tettnanger but went with Motueka this time. I used a pitch rate of 1g/L for all three yeasts. I drank the Mauribrew weeks ago, but just tried the M54 and K-97 today, after 6 weeks of lagering at 1C. Both refused to clear on their own, and both took a week to clear after the same dose of Silafine.

The M54 and K-97 tasted very similar to me. I couldn't tell them apart. I don't have the most reliable palate, but that was my experience.
 

Protos

The Gulper
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
80
Reaction score
61
Location
Valle Lacrimarum
I too did a side by side comparison between M54 and K97 once. I think of them as of two similar but far from identical yeasts. K97 in my experiment produced cleaner (less esters, I mean) and slightly tarter beer, while M54 was more estery and noticeably better flocculating. In my experience, they aren't interchangable at all, and I personally prefer M54.
 

tizoc

Active Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
36
Reaction score
30
I used M54 only once, found it to be far mor estery than K-97 (which to me is very clean at 16C), and it's krausen didn't look like what I remember K-97's krausen looks like. I didn't like M54 at all.

After a long time of not being able too find it, I recently got some packets of K-97, but I don't plan to use them for now (it is winter here, so it is low-temp-fermented lagers time for me).

Edit:

K97 in my experiment produced cleaner (less esters, I mean) and slightly tarter beer
That is how K97 feels to me, quite clean, and slightly tart (but in a good positive way, not S-04 tart which I hate).
 
Last edited:

Protos

The Gulper
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
80
Reaction score
61
Location
Valle Lacrimarum
I hate S04 tartness (or rather to say, sourness) too. I've found a way to manage it though (after starting a dedicated thread here on HBT). It really helps if you don't ferment your wort with dry or rehydrated yeast but make a starter first. Then S04 performs more like M36: some slight tartness proper to the style and no unpleasant acidity anymore. I found the same is true with some other Fermentis dry yeast (like US05, which, when fermented too cold, sometimes produced excessive tartness to me). Now I never use Fermentis yeasts (T58 aside) without making a starter first.
 

Latest posts

Top